Scotopic threshold responses to infrared irradiation in cats

Camera trap flash-type does not influence the behaviour of feral cats (Felis catus)

Camera traps are now the most commonly used technique for indexing feral cat (Felis catus) and predator populations. Camera flash-type has been suggested to influence an animal's behaviour and their redetection by similar cameras, with white-flash cameras being shown to reduce the probability of redetecting some species. We investigated the influence of camera flash-type on the behaviour of feral cats by categorising their behavioural response to white-flash and infrared-flash cameras and assessing the frequency with which individual cats were redetected by the same white-flash camera or a different white-flash camera at the same site following their initial detection. We found no evidence that flash type had any influence on the cats’ observed behavioural responses towards cameras, or that cats captured by white-flash cameras avoided redetection. Our findings suggest that white-flash cameras are suitable for the detection and redetection of cats, and provide better-quality images from which to identify individual cats.

Are we getting the full picture? Animal responses to camera traps and implications for predator studies

Camera trapping is widely used in ecological studies. It is often considered nonintrusive simply because animals are not captured or handled. However, the emission of light and sound from camera traps can be intrusive. We evaluated the daytime and nighttime behavioral responses of four mammalian predators to camera traps in road‐based, passive (no bait) surveys, in order to determine how this might affect ecological investigations. Wild dogs, European red foxes, feral cats, and spotted‐tailed quolls all exhibited behaviors indicating they noticed camera traps. Their recognition of camera traps was more likely when animals were approaching the device than if they were walking away from it. Some individuals of each species retreated from camera traps and some moved toward them, with negative behaviors slightly more common during the daytime. There was no consistent response to camera traps within species; both attraction and repulsion were observed. Camera trapping is clearly an intrusive sampling method for some individuals of some species. This may limit the utility of conclusions about animal behavior obtained from camera trapping. Similarly, it is possible that behavioral responses to camera traps could affect detection probabilities, introducing as yet unmeasured biases into camera trapping abundance surveys. These effects demand consideration when utilizing camera traps in ecological research and will ideally prompt further work to quantify associated biases in detection probabilities.

Camera traps can be heard and seen by animals

Camera traps are electrical instruments that emit sounds and light. In recent decades they have become a tool of choice in wildlife research and monitoring. The variability between camera trap models and the methods used are considerable, and little is known about how animals respond to camera trap emissions. It has been reported that some animals show a response to camera traps, and in research this is often undesirable so it is important to understand why the animals are disturbed. We conducted laboratory based investigations to test the audio and infrared optical outputs of 12 camera trap models. Camera traps were measured for audio outputs in an anechoic chamber; we also measured ultrasonic (n = 5) and infrared illumination outputs (n = 7) of a subset of the camera trap models. We then compared the perceptive hearing range (n = 21) and assessed the vision ranges (n = 3) of mammals species (where data existed) to determine if animals can see and hear camera traps. We report that camera traps produce sounds that are well within the perceptive range of most mammals’ hearing and produce illumination that can be seen by many species.

Stand des subretinalen Implantatprojekts

The development of a subretinal prosthesis has come to a stage where human trials are forthcoming. Subretinal prostheses are designed to replace degenerated photoreceptors in diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa or age-related macular degeneration. Microphotodiode arrays are implanted between retinal pigment epithelium and retina. Our group has collected convincing evidence for the principle feasibility of a subretinal prosthesis. Animal experiments have shown that subretinal electrical stimulation can successfully elicit spatially ordered responses in the visual cortex; visual acuity is estimated to reach 0.25 degrees of visual angle. Histological long-term examinations have demonstrated that the retina tolerates a subretinal implant well and also that the implant itself sustains the ocular environments. Surgical procedures have been successfully developed to implant complex subretinal devices.